Allowed

Balkar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2014CRM-M/24790/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings arising from the impugned FIR registered for offences under IPC and Arms Act, holding that a valid compromise between parties rendered continued proceedings futile and contrary to the object of maintaining peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 34 dated 15.03.2012 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

Balkar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-24790 of 2014 Date of decision: 11.12.2014.

¶3

Balkar Singh and others

¶4

..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 – State.

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶16

Petitioners, namely, Balkar Singh, Gurmit Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Piara Singh, Raj Singh, Balwinder Singh, Joga Singh, Dr. Gurmej Singh and Harpreet Singh @ Harji, have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.34 dated 15.03.2012 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran on the basis of compromise

¶17

NEETU RANI 2014.12.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-24790 of 2014

¶19

¶20

effected between the parties.

¶21

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant-respondent No.2. During pendency of the proceedings of investigation, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and cancellation report was prepared and submitted before the trial Court.

¶22

In compliance of directions issued by this Court on 26.09.2014, petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have appeared before JMIC, Patti and their statements were recorded. A report in this regard along with the statements of the parties has been received, which is on record wherein factum of compromise has been affirmed. It has been mentioned in the report that the compromise arrived at between the parties is as per free will and without any pressure, undue influence and coercion from either side. Complainant has specifically stated in his statement that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶23

Since the parties have compromised their dispute and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served in case proceedings are continued as it would amount to wastage of precious time of the Court as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution and as such continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise. Moreover, the object of the compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in the

¶24

NEETU RANI 2014.12.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-24790 of 2014

¶26

¶27

relations.

¶28

In another case i.e., CRM-M-24816 of 2014 filed by the same parties, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and FIR in that case has also been quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.34 dated 15.03.2012 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners, namely, Balkar Singh, Gurmit Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Piara Singh, Raj Singh, Balwinder Singh, Joga Singh, Dr. Gurmej Singh and Harpreet Singh @ Harji, are hereby quashed.

¶30

11.12.2014 neetu

¶31

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶32

NEETU RANI 2014.12.17 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Balkar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Didar Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others

M/S Punjab Traders Vs M/S Milan Food Products

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vikas @Vicky Vs State of Haryana